Good Enough

Every American should feel a debt of gratitude to Gen. Petraeus and the great American troops fighting under him for us. This gratitude is due not simply for the extraordinary progress they have accomplished in Iraq, but for what they have taught us about ourselves.

Quick, for a 10 point bonus, what have they taught us about ourselves?:dunno:

Again, I seriously doubt that he wants to bring each and every soldier who is serving overseas home. And what if the U.S. starts bringing home some of its overseas forces? What nation is poised to go on the offensive and take over Europe? Asia? Save for maybe Russia or China, the U.S. military is the only military in the world who can go on the offensive, take, and hold lots of real estate. Again, I fail to see what other "power" is out there which poses an immediate threat.

The founders had no intention of global empire but they had every intention of protecting the economic interests of the United States from the very beginning. You are the one that cannot understand history. You have an agenda and you think your title makes your agenda correct.

You ignore the history that doesn't support your viewpoint. From the start the United States has pursued a very aggressive foreign policy, committing troops in harm's way for sometimes extremely trivial matters.

And what planet's history are you reading if you believe there are thousands of years of non-aggressive foreign policy?

The history is that aggressive foreign policy prevents large conflict and passive foreign policy results in horrible, all encompassing war.

My title? You know what I had to do to earn the right to call myself Doctor?

I never bother mentioning my credentials, but since you did yes, I think I do post with some degree of gravitas.

I've had to read thousands of books and articles, do extensive research, endure God-knows how many exams to earn that title. Many on the founders. And I'm pretty ******* proud of it. My knowledge of history is well rooted, deep, analytical, and for the most part accurate.

And you don't have an "agenda" Please.

Let's just review here the history lesson I gave not too long ago to your so-called "understanding" of history.

The United States has been using it's military to protect its commerce since 1801. Before that the US paid bribes to avoid war because it was thought to be cheaper at the time. Now this might be Ron Paul's foreign policy except he specifically states he is against foreign aid to anybody that doesn't meet his rather strict requirements of :
1. Loved by all
2. No possibility of ever turning against the US.

Again, I don't know where you get your "history" from, but this claim is downright 100% specious. There's a big difference in protecting commerce and occupying foreign countries vis a vis imperialism. Your simplifying and broadly generalizing the notion that the United States has sought out to be an empire since its inception. Further, I think your simplifying Paul's stance here--he wants a saner, more rational and more likely CHEAPER [lolol Republicans are for smaller government] system of foreign aid.

RebSaint is reading my other posts into this one hence his reply. I am someone that believes in American Empire and that doesn't bother me one bit. I believe there is plenty of history to support my theory that the world is one long series of imperial struggles for supremacy. I'm not an idealist. There is going to be empires in competition. I much prefer the US to be a lone hyper-power exercising hegemony over areas important to US interests. I guess that makes me a 'Neocon' but I think they are pretty late to the party. Besides no one really even knows what 'Neocon' means anymore. Its just another meaningless label.

hahaha. So says the poster who claims that his support for Paul is due to being a "Democrat." Yes, maybe NeoConservative might be a meaningless label, but I think it's more precise than "conservative," or "liberal." A NeoConservative is nothing more than a big-government liberal regarding foreign policy. It's why the R-Party is hypocritical in this instance.

But your partially correct here, but again mostly wrong. Actually history supports the argument that the United States should not be pursuing an Empire. Name for me one Empire which has not fallen. There's a laundry list of empires which have fallen because of overextension of military sources and a subsequent domestic economic collapse. You willfully love the "American Empire" and wish to see it expand despite the mountains of historical evidence which reveals that large, ever-growing empires erode freedom at home and eventually collapse.

I've read plenty of history. History backs my viewpoint. I certainly understand people who idealistically wish for us 'to all get along'. I just don't believe it will ever happen. It certainly never has in the past recorded history.

Since when has the foreign policy option been to "get along" verses to "not get along." It's not just about "getting along," it's about not being aggressive when unnecessary and priorities. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "getting along" with anybody, it had everything to do with accessing oil for large oil companies. Foreign policy isn't just about "getting along" verses "not getting along"

And supporting an aggressive pax Americana policy isn't? What color is the sky in your world? What's foolish is to pursue a foreign policy [in the middle east], which caused a lot of the problems with terrorism in the first place. I mean, there's an historical parallel [the CIA calls it "blowback] between terrorism and imperialism. And you want to continue being an imperial power? What about democracy, freedom, sovereignty, and all those values which our founding fathers valued? No, what's an insult is continuing to support arguably a foreign policy which our founding fathers would abhor.

You proclaim that you favor the "American Empire" and somehow cite the founding fathers were somehow onboard with this idea. This historical observation is an absolute, complete anachronistic observation. The founding fathers--and take notes here--just recently REBELLED from an empire in an arguably democratic-inspired revolution. In other words, your fitting round pegs into decidedly square holes. *Whiff*

As for reading the Founders, I have checked that box. I've also read what the founders did after they got what they were writing and fighting for. When you consider how weak the US was militarily during the first 50 years of existence the foreign policy looks astoundingly brash. And their foreign policy looked a lot more like Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Teddy, Franklin, and George W. Bush than it looks like Ron Paul's. Ron Paul's brand gets defeated at the polls most of the time. The American people aren't stupid, thank god.

Again, you are grossly misinformed regarding the history of foreign policy of this country. Please. For the love of all things holy, pick up an American history survey. Comparing the foreign policy of this country for the first 50 years with the foreign policy of the past 50 years is like comparing an battleship with a turnip. You are simplifying and making bogus comparisons. This country's foreign policy in the 20th century was significantly different from the early republic's approach to foreign policy. It's just misleading to compare the foreign policy of Teddy Roosevelt with Thomas Jefferson. There's no real valid comparison because the two men lived in much, much different worlds.

Please, please, please do yourself a favor and at least pick up a U.S. history survey, because this claim is tantamount to arguing that the U.S. foreign policy hasn't changed in its 200+ year history. It's not as simple as arguing that "intervention" has always been the policy, therefore, it should continue. It is simply not true that this country was "pursuing an Empire" from the beginning.

We are going to conduct open trade but we are not going to commit our military overseas or on the high seas to protect the trade routes and infrastructure.

What an absolutely silly question. The war in Iraq didn't have anything to do with securing trade routes. His point is that through a strong Navy [something which hasn't changed about foreign policy] and securing trade routes should be a priority, But occupying foreign countries in the name of large corporations should not. Iraq has zip. Nada. Nothing. to with trade routes. You're conflating and simplifying the economic reasons a nation state chooses to go to war. You assume that the occupation of Iraq has everything to do with access to oil--no, it's NOT NECESSARY. It's not as if there aren't other sources for oil in the world. It has everything to do with getting large corporations access to that oil; name for me one American besides the big oil Execs who will benefit from this policy? Not one.

Bottom line: If you're going to cite "history" for your arguments, gumbeau, it's better to come to the discussion better informed. BTW, if you pick up the American history survey, you'll find out that this country did not begin a pursuit of a global empire until after 1900. And one final point: you seem to be all supportive of growing the American empire, when history is replete with evidence that empires adopt oppressive governments; furthermore, I could not think of anything more UN merikan [tm-W] than invading and occupying foreign powers and forcing our culture and government on others in the name for a buck. I'm all for intervention, when it's absolutely necessary and it benefits the NATION. Paul's point is that true, the U.S. inherited the duty of keeping trade routes open from the British--I have no problem with keeping a large navy and securing trade routes. Knocking off tin-pot dictators in the name of large corporations and keeping large standing armies in foreign lands =/ keeping "trading routes" open, so your comparison is flawed.

And from my understanding of history and the founders, seeking and empire would completely belie their political values--having just broken the yoke of tyranny from the BRITISH empire.

The United States has not always been "aggressive" in the name of just economic interests. And whose "economic" interests are we serving in Iraq specifically? Just because the United States has fought wars or has been expansionist for economic interests doesn't make it right. You're seriously conflating the history of foreign policy over the past 107 years verses what the founders envisioned.

One. more. Time. Jefferson, Madison, most of the founders agreed that a strong Navy was necessary to protect trading routes. I do agree with you on this point. The United States has followed Mahan's advice that a strong navy will ensure security and prosperity.

But the United States did not invade Iraq to protect the high seas. The United States didn't even invade Afghanistan to protect commercial interests.

>>>>>>>>You never responded to this post, so I await your vast knowledge and an explanation why kids are wasting your tax dollars on worthless history teachers not ideological to the great brilliance of Neoconservatives or FOXNEWS. You've been putting out enormous amounts of misinformation or completely misinterpreting history. I've followed your posts, and when you raise the mantle of "history," my antennae go up. Most posters on the EE have some understanding of history, although they get the nuances wrong--DadsDream, although I disagree with him doesn't mangle history like you do. You mangle it, to the point of just being contrary to basic facts or simple interpretations which have been revised for 50 years. Oho, and another point--I'm the best at what I do. I can't do much in this world, but I've found my "calling" so to speak.